Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

The topics bounce around because gender ideology is a profound change that will eventually impact every facet of society.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

The topics bounce around because gender ideology is a profound change that will eventually impact every facet of society.

+1 Those are all valid topics to come up in a 58 page thread. I think many are surprised that this thread is still going at all and trying to cover all lot of things while it’s still active.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like how these threads always bounce around between protecting the kids, sports, bathrooms, locker rooms, self ID, prison, and back to sports without any apparent reason for the changes.

My favorite part was a couple pages back where someone was talking about their trans kid needing to go to a therapist to get hormones and someone else said they were wrong because adults can get HRT without a therapist and implies that adults shouldn’t have bodily autonomy.

Do you not understand how the thread expand feature works? It's really handy and shows you the entire context for every discussion.

But I'll give you a summary. This thread is inherently about the distinction, overlap, and conflicts between biological sex (real, based on science, observable in material reality) and gender for which there is no clear definition but is generally communicated as feelings or ideas unique to each person which may or may not somehow relate to cultural norms and stereotypes about biological sex; or a person's feelings about their physical sexed body. Everyone of the topics you listed raises relates back to the unclear definition of so-called "gender identity" and how it impacts the rights of biological males and females.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

What does gender identity/gender roles have to do with sexual dimorphism? I thought gender identity is separate from biology. Can you elaborate on this reference? What is the connection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

They then go on to say that there are no physical attributes of males vs females which require distinction in athletic competitions. Do you believe that male sexual biological characteristics are irrelevant in athletic competition?

Having a penis and testes is irrelevant. Having increased muscle mass, arterial oxygen levels and lung capacity is not.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to make the case that a males increased muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and different skeletal structure is unrelated to his penis and testes and chromosomes? Or are you trying to make the case that muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports.

The second. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

Intersex people are genetic anomalies. When the chromosomes are present in correct number and sequence, you have male and female. Men and women are dimorphic - full stop.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

What does gender identity/gender roles have to do with sexual dimorphism? I thought gender identity is separate from biology. Can you elaborate on this reference? What is the connection?

It's a legal filing and therefore the lawyers have identified any nit they can legally pick. That's what lawyers are paid to do. I don't think that it is part of a unified theory of gender but rather one more argument from the complaint to which they can object. The goal is to invalidate the complaint and the more parts of it they can discredit, the better.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

Intersex people are genetic anomalies. When the chromosomes are present in correct number and sequence, you have male and female. Men and women are dimorphic - full stop.

Feel free to join the lawsuit and make that argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

They then go on to say that there are no physical attributes of males vs females which require distinction in athletic competitions. Do you believe that male sexual biological characteristics are irrelevant in athletic competition?

Having a penis and testes is irrelevant. Having increased muscle mass, arterial oxygen levels and lung capacity is not.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to make the case that a males increased muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and different skeletal structure is unrelated to his penis and testes and chromosomes? Or are you trying to make the case that muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports.

The second. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

At least we can agree that there are biological sexual characteristics unique to males and females! So your point is that the muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports and dominate women physically. Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Here is another article which confidently asserts that transwomen (biological males) have no advantages over biological women (females) in sports based on biological sex diffrences. Precisely that "there is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.” I am quite tired of being gaslit that no one is "denying the science" that there are real biological sexual differences between males and females.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked

That article literally says that the statement “sex is binary, apparent at birth and identifiable through singular biological characters” IS A MYTH.

I did not mistype. They did not say gender. They said SEX.

They then go on to say that there are no physical attributes of males vs females which require distinction in athletic competitions. Do you believe that male sexual biological characteristics are irrelevant in athletic competition?

Having a penis and testes is irrelevant. Having increased muscle mass, arterial oxygen levels and lung capacity is not.

I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to make the case that a males increased muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and different skeletal structure is unrelated to his penis and testes and chromosomes? Or are you trying to make the case that muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports.

The second. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

At least we can agree that there are biological sexual characteristics unique to males and females! So your point is that the muscle mass, oxygen levels, and lung capacity are the only biological sex characteristics which influence male ability to dominate sports and dominate women physically. Is that right?

I’m in your side! I am flabbergasted that that site said “sex is binary” is a myth.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

Intersex people are genetic anomalies. When the chromosomes are present in correct number and sequence, you have male and female. Men and women are dimorphic - full stop.

Feel free to join the lawsuit and make that argument.

Ha! That’s the last thing anyone would want. Even though scientifically I’m right I’m not eloquent enough to argue it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

The excerpt says:

Proposed Intervenors also deny the allegation that “human beings” are “sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]”

I suspect that the Intervenors deny this is because there are intersex people who don't fit into the dimorphic paradigm. Admittedly such people are rare, but their existence means that the the claim about men and women being dimorphic is wrong.

What does gender identity/gender roles have to do with sexual dimorphism? I thought gender identity is separate from biology. Can you elaborate on this reference? What is the connection?

It's a legal filing and therefore the lawyers have identified any nit they can legally pick. That's what lawyers are paid to do. I don't think that it is part of a unified theory of gender but rather one more argument from the complaint to which they can object. The goal is to invalidate the complaint and the more parts of it they can discredit, the better.

Again, Could someone provide a link to a unified theory of gender or definition so that we can have a coherent and good faith conversation? I am confused on if/how gender identity relates to biological sex. People keep saying different things. It seems to be a belief in a feeling or soul which is completely severed from biological sex? Yet this feeling/soul tells us if we are men or women?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Jeff, I would be very curious about your take on the decision. I’ve appreciated your thoughts and contributions in this thread.

I believe that this outcome is entirely what trans rights advocates want, and that under current laws protecting against gender identity discrimination, it would be discriminatory to allow spa workers to refuse to provide services to naked people with penises, regardless of any safety concerns for the women spa workers.

Link here:

A lawyer once told me that there is a saying, "if the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither are on your side, jump up and down and scream." I think this is a case were the law was on the plaintiffs' side. So they argued the law and won the case. The facts are really not in dispute, though I might argue that common sense, in my opinion (which, I acknowledge is completely worthless), leans toward the spa. A woman with a penis would likely make everyone in the establishment uncomfortable and probably feel uncomfortable herself. As such, while I acknowledge a trans women's right to attend the spa, I question why she would want to.

Related, the spa's website apparently says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sex, yet by their own admission, they do discriminate on that basis. Perhaps justifiably. But they might be subject to false advertising allegations.

Are the possible motivations for this behavior really so mysterious? You have no idea why the person would want to enter the spa?